Six challenges for organizing a progressive religious movement

[rug]

By Robert P. Jones, Published: August 2 at 7:00 am

FIGURING FAITH: The recent release of the PRRI/Brookings Economic Values Survey has triggered a lively discussion about a potential shift of power between religious conservatives and progressives in the American religious landscape. Most of the debate has centered around the future significance of current patterns—most prominently, the nearly linear correlation between religious conservatism and age, with religious progressives (and the nonreligious) holding an advantage over religious conservatives among the Millennial generation.

But there has been little attention paid to another set of factors crucial for evaluating the future impact of any progressive religious movement. Compared to their conservative counterparts, religious progressives face considerably higher obstacles to successful organizing. The PRRI/Brookings survey reveals six significant challenges facing any leader who may attempt to transform the one-in-five (19%) Americans who are religious progressives from a scattered constituency into an organized movement:

1. Identity. Perhaps the most fundamental challenge is that religious progressives are much less likely than religious conservatives to see themselves as part of a larger movement. Among Americans who share a religious conservative profile, nearly half (49 percent) say they consider themselves “part of the religious right or conservative Christian movement.” By contrast, among Americans who share a religious progressive profile, less than one-in-five (19 percent) say they consider themselves “part of the religious left or progressive religious movement.”

2. Diversity. Seven-in-ten religious conservatives are white Christians, compared to just four-in-ten religious progressives who are white Christians. In addition to white Christians, the progressive religious coalition consists of ethnic minority Christians (27 percent), non-Christian religious Americans such as Jews, Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus (13 percent); and unattached believers (18 percent) who are not formally affiliated with a religious tradition but who nevertheless say religion is at least somewhat important in their lives.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/08/02/six-challenges-for-organizing-a-progressive-religious-movement/

[Scuba]

1. Thanks. Forwarded to my favorite Episcopalian minister.

[Scuba]

2. And her reply ...

With the possible exception of #4 (in my experience), all these are true, but if we are to view these as challenges to overcome, then we would have to become just like religious conservatives: lock-step tribalists who don't question what they think.

We have the same problems all liberals have -- we applaud diversity; we encourage thinking for ourselves, even questioning our own beliefs; we don't threaten people for disagreeing, and I could go on. We can hardly do much about improving education in the areas of the country with poor educational systems. We do think our faith should inform our politics, but our faith is very different from that of conservatives, so naturally our politics are too. We are adamantly in favor of the separation of church and state, that's a different thing -- one is personal, the other is institutional.

But there's a confusion of terms which skews the whole article: Religion and faith are not the same thing. Religion is corporate -- the word comes from the Latin for 'to tie together.' It is inherently vulnerable to authoritarianism, group-think and tribalism. Faith is individual -- and religious liberals are people who can accept differences (doctrinal, racial, etc.) and ambiguity within community. But these make it is difficult for religious liberals to act in concert just as the same values -- which make us political liberals -- do all political liberals.

We cannot become just like those we oppose in order to win elections. We might win elections, but we would have lost our faith and our humanity -- and for many of us, those are the most important thing in our lives.

[cbayer]

4. Thanks so much for sharing this!

Great answer.

[rug]

5. Wow, she is good.

[Jim__]

6. I take her to be saying that there won't be a progressive religious movement ...

... at least not as a progressive religious movement. But, progressive religious people can come together - with other progressives - to fight for specific issues.

[dar3sides]

10. politics and faith, faith and politics

To put it as simply as possible, for religious liberals, our faith forms our politics; for religious conservatives, their politics form their faith.

[cbayer]

3. I think he makes some good, valid points and the hurdles are certainly there,

but it's been done before.

During the AA civil rights movement and the Viet Nam anti-war movement, liberal and progressive religious organizations did coordinate and mobilize.

It might be harder, but it can certainly be done. Looks like it's happening in North Carolina.

[Jim__]

7. Do you think the AA civil rights and anti-Vietnam war movements were religious movements?

I agree that a lot of the organizing was done by progressive religious organizations, but, I don't think they organized around specifically religious issues. I think they organized around issues of social justice which fit in with progressive religious beliefs; but, the appeal was to a much broader group of people.

[cbayer]

8. I'm not sure what you mean by "religious movements".

I don't think the religious groups involved saw them as religious movements, per se. They saw them as movements about civil liberties, social justice and peace. Their involvement in the movements was religiously motivated. But "religious movements"? I never heard that.

So, I agree with what you are saying here.

They were very important in organizing and motivating within the movement, though.

[pinto]

9. Interesting stuff. I think the given assumptions the WaPo author starts out with are unclear, tho.

Or unclearly defined. i.e. - Organizing, activism, religious movement. Not sure what he's alluding to. Activism in the electoral realm, as the religious right has increasingly done? Activism in the social spheres, as progressives have always done? Organizing into a movement? And what of the nones, agnostics and atheists?

Item #6 and the final paragraph stood out for me -

6. Separation of church and state concerns. Notably, religious progressives and religious conservatives also hold strikingly different views about the role that religion should play in debates over public policy. Nearly 9-in-10 (87 percent) of religious progressives agree that religion is a private matter that should be kept out of public debates over political and social issues. Religious conservatives, on the other hand, hold far fewer qualms about marshaling religious arguments in public debates (49 percent agree, 49 percent disagree). While this reticence to bring religion into public debate is consistent with progressive commitments to the separation of church and state, it may dampen the ability of religious progressives to speak in a language that other religious progressives would recognize or respond to.

<snip>

One thing is clear. If religious progressives are going to organize their significant numbers into a movement to be reckoned with, they are going to have to do more than borrow a page from the 1980s moral majority playbook.

Thanks for the post. The piece is a good one, raises some good points as well as some areas for further discussion.